According to online reports, Apple has added ‘classic’ films to its TV service, and I imagine that some will exclaim that it’s “about damn time”.
One of the main criticisms (not by me, mind you) levied at Apple TV is that its library isn’t big enough. Yes, I’d agree in the sense that its catalogue is not as big as others, but in another sense I don’t agree because the point of Apple TV is that it is small and building a reputation for good quality TV series (less so about the films).
Every service has to start somewhere, and they all started small. HBO wasn’t a giant when it started (in the vein of Game of Thrones, it was more a usurper). Neither was Showtime nor Comedy Central, to name a few.
Part of Apple TV’s raison d’etre is that it’s a streaming boutique, and if it were to license catalogues for streaming in the vein of Netflix or Prime Video, then what would set it apart from them?
The addition of these ‘classic’ movies is a swerve ball because none of them are particularly recent (Arrival is ten years old this year); they’re not from any one studio but a selection of Sony, Paramount, 20th Century, Walt Disney etc and a very curious selection of genres at that.
It seems as if Apple is testing the waters, but what is it a launchpad for? A wider selection, a buffer for when its own release schedule is a bit thin? It’s made me ponder a few things about why Apple just didn’t buy Warner Bros.
Warner Bros. would have been a great fit
If there’s any service that Apple TV seems to be aping, it’d be HBO. High-quality, (mostly) original content that tells a wide and diverse range of stories. HBO is the standard that every other channel and TV service wants to match.
But Apple, and I’d wager it could be viewed as either ambitious or arrogant, wants to build something, not acquire it. That certainly takes a much longer time, and recently, there have been questions asked about whether Apple really wants to devote lots of money to a service that’s losing money. That said, it seems most streaming services are losing money, though recently there have been signs of a turnaround.
Nevertheless, buying Warner Bros. would have given it a massive library. It would have given it a built-in subscriber base and audience from HBO Max (140 million compared to Apple’s 45 million), which also means it would have given Apple TV scale and reach – the ability to reach a wide number of people.
Apple seems to think that everyone with an iPhone or iPad would be interested in its streaming service, to the point where it’s virtually given it away in the last few years to ensure people come to the service. That doesn’t build a streaming service, at least not in the long-term.
Apple TV’s films are weak sauce
There is this baffling experiment streamers seem to have indulged in, where they make a film, and it turns out to be not very good.
The best Netflix films tend to be ones already produced outside of the Netflix system that it snaps up at festivals. Very rarely has it developed a manner of consistently creating good content. That’s another reason why Netflix was interested in Warner Bros.
Others have been equally up and down. For every Project Hail Mary there seems to be a Masters of the Universe for Prime Video, but Apple TV has arguably been the worst of the lot because it has spent huge amounts of money, and lassoed star names and managed to produce limp and forgettable efforts. At least Netflix has Beasts of No Nation and The Irishman in its back catalogue; what exactly has Apple done?
Warner Bros.’ slate of 2025 films were virtually all smash hits, generating cultural awareness and becoming part of the conversation, which is something you’d think Apple would like to be a part of. This has been a part of Warner Bros.’ DNA for decades, and it’s not something that you can magic up in an instant.
That said, Apple did make Killers of the Flower Moon, but it felt as if it came and went along with the awards season of that year. Apple TV’s films need staying power. They need to last – it needs its own version of The Sixth Sense that it’s just licensed. Films that people remember and come back to. The films Apple TV has licensed are a reminder of just that.
Apple TV needs a hit factory
I respect Apple’s approach in the sense that it’s creating original content, but it can’t keep ploughing huge amounts of money into films that are so forgettable that you can’t remember watching them, or exist almost as art exhibits, to be seen, pondered about and then moved on from. It needs things to keep people coming back to.
HBO has Game of Thrones, and it had the likes of Euphoria, The Wire, The Sopranos and Curb Your Enthusiasm. Netflix had Stranger Things and it has One Piece. Prime Video has The Marvelous Miss Maisel and Reacher is currently in its fourth season.
They have shows that people keep coming back to. Apple TV has this as well: Slow Horses, Severance, Silo, Ted Lasso, but does not own all of these shows (Ted Lasso is actually Warner Bros., Silo is co-produced with AMC Studios, and Severance was owned by production company Fifth Season until it bought the rights in early 2026). And as good as these series have been, they’ve not dramatically boosted its subscriber base. 45 million in seven years does not look great. Disney+ has about 132 million in about the same time – that’s almost three times as much.
Whether Apple likes it or not, developing and then extending recognisable films and series is what people react to. There’s admiration in what Apple is doing, but there’s also a sense of naivety. For the established studios, most of whom have celebrated their 100-year anniversaries in the last five years, it’s taken decades to reach this point.
Apple can’t take decades of losses on principle, which makes it all the more galling that Warner Bros. was right there for the taking, and it didn’t even bid. I wonder whether that’ll be a wise decision in a few years’ time.
